Ferveo Variant docs - also removal of existing stale ferveo docs. #143
Conversation
…longer applicable based on changes we made to the logic.
derekpierre
force-pushed
the
variant-docs
branch
from
56b5784
to
12fa4ec
Compare
derekpierre
force-pushed
the
variant-docs
branch
from
12fa4ec
to
3eea8fd
Compare
derekpierre
changed the title
| `n - m + 1` nodes would have to not respond for the failure case. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Disadvantages | ||
| - Since the `m` nodes are arbitrary, combining the decryption shares requires the requester to do a more computationally intensive operation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we mention the performance overhead in concrete numbers and/or link to benchmarks?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If there is something to link to - yep, no problem, just point me to it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those look like scripts to do the benchmarking, is there an output file containing the benchmarks somewhere or no? If not, perhaps you can add instructions on running those scripts to the docs in a separate PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the output of cargo bench and these files are generated locally. We could add a section dedicated to benchmarking with these instructions and other information.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's do that in a different PR.
|
Side note: there is a mention of |
|
@derekpierre Yes, we use the original |
Type of PR:
Required reviews:
What this does:
Issues fixed/closed:
Fixes #140 .
Why it's needed:
Notes for reviewers:
I tried to keep some of the more relevant existing Ferveo docs. I have no problems with just deleting them if they are just no longer applicable.
Let me know what you think.